A bill from an independent · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "Abolish Super PACs Act," aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The primary goal is to place reasonable limits on contributions made to Super PACs that engage in independent expenditures. By doing so, the act seeks to limit the risk of corrupt agreements between candidates and contributors. It also intends to reduce the appearance of corruption that arises from these uncapped contributions. Ultimately, the legislation is designed to protect American democracy and restore public faith in the election system.
Yes· 3 of 19
- Scored +8
Does this make elections run better?
The bill seeks to restore public faith in elections by limiting large, unregulated contributions to Super PACs and reducing the risk of corruption.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Reducing the influence of massive, untraceable political contributions can increase the perceived integrity of the political system.
- Scored +3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reducing the influence of extremely wealthy donors may allow for political outcomes that better represent low-income interests.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -7
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
The bill targets the specific mechanism used by the wealthiest individuals to exert vast political influence.
- Scored -7
Would billionaires be better off under this?
The bill curtails the ability of billionaires to provide massive sums of money to Super PACs to influence elections.
- Scored -6
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
The bill directly limits the scale of political contributions that high-net-worth individuals can make to independent expenditure committees.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reducing Corruption Risks: The bill aims to limit the risk of corrupt agreements between candidates and contributors by placing limits on contributions to committees that make independent expenditures (Section 2(a)(1), Section 2(b)(1)).
-
Addressing the Appearance of Corruption: By placing limits on contributions, the act intends to reduce the appearance of corruption created by currently uncapped contributions (Section 2(a)(7), Section 2(b)(2)).
-
Decreasing Foreign Interference: The bill suggests that placing reasonable limits on these contributions will lessen the risk of foreign entities funneling money into United States elections via third-party contributors (Section 2(a)(8)).
-
Restoring Public Faith: The purpose of the act is to restore the public's faith in the election system (Section 2(b)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts or burdens are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make elections run better? — The bill seeks to restore public faith in elections by limiting large, unregulated contributions to Super PACs and reducing the risk of corruption. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Reducing the influence of massive, untraceable political contributions can increase the perceived integrity of the political system.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reducing the influence of extremely wealthy donors may allow for political outcomes that better represent low-income interests. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Limiting the dominance of top-tier donors may result in a political system more responsive to middle-class concerns. Would union members be better off under this? — Reducing the influence of massive individual wealth may create more space for diverse political interests to be heard. Would farmers be better off under this? — A more representative political system may better reflect the interests of rural and agricultural communities. Would gun owners be better off under this? — A more responsive political system can better reflect the views of all constituent groups. Would immigrants be better off under this? — By reducing foreign influence, the bill aims to ensure elections are driven by the domestic electorate. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Reducing large-scale political spending may lead to a political system more responsive to diverse interests. Would men be better off under this? — Increased electoral integrity may lead to a more representative political landscape for all demographics. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — A more responsive political system may better address the needs of all constituent groups. Would retired people be better off under this? — A more responsive political system may better address the needs of all constituent groups. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — A more responsive political system may better reflect the interests of all constituent groups. Would students be better off under this? — A more responsive political system may better address the needs of all constituent groups. Would people in cities be better off under this? — A more responsive political system may better address the needs of all constituent groups. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — A more representative political system can better address the needs of all citizen groups, including veterans. Would women be better off under this? — Increased electoral integrity may lead to a more representative political landscape for all demographics. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill curtails the ability of billionaires to provide massive sums of money to Super PACs to influence elections. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill targets the specific mechanism used by the wealthiest individuals to exert vast political influence. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill directly limits the scale of political contributions that high-net-worth individuals can make to independent expenditure committees. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill restricts the ability of high-income individuals to make massive, uncapped contributions to Super PACs. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill may limit the political influence available to large business interests through Super PACs.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — By reducing the risk of foreign interference in elections, the bill aims to protect national sovereignty.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill's focus on election integrity may indirectly support more representative governance for all citizens.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/20/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York